NHL COO says jersey sponsorship is "coming and happening"

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Cheapening the Brand only matters, if it stops people from buying the product. If it doesn't, the brand was not cheapened.

- Are people going to stop going to games or tuning in to TV if this happens? I'd say not a chance, so no worries there.

- Are people going to stop eating and drinking at the games if this happens? Not a chance I'd say.

- Are people going to stop buying Flames merchandise that's not Jersey's if this happens? Again, I doubt it.

- Are people going to stop buying Jersey's if this happens? Maybe. This is seemingly the only risk, and I'd wager for close to everyone, they will come around eventually. All it's going to take is the next Johnny Hockey to come around and join the team after this becomes a reality and almost everyone talking tough is going to cave cause they just have to have his jersey. And even if sales do drop, they have to drop by more then what the ad revenue brings in.

Given the above, pretty low risk move for the NHL, they almost have to try it, it would be bad business if they didn't.

No it wouldn't. They're not a publicly traded company, they answer to themselves with it comes to revenue. They're not forced to alter their presentation to make more money. Just because they don't tap a revenue stream that carries negative connotations in North America doesn't mean it's bad business.

[Badgers Nose]

I'd buy a chicken on way Flames jersey.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by nik-

No it wouldn't. They're not a publicly traded company, they answer to themselves with it comes to revenue. They're not forced to alter their presentation to make more money. Just because they don't tap a revenue stream that carries negative connotations in North America doesn't mean it's bad business.

Only public traded companies have the goal of making money..........that's unpossible!

So your argument is they don't have to make money if they don't want to. Fair point I guess, you've shown me. I'll probably just stop posting on this matter, there's just no way to compete with the level of genius logic you've just presented me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Shawarma shop down the street to inform them that they are not required to make any money and that my Shawarma should be free, after all, they only have themselves to answer to.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Only public traded companies have the goal of making money..........that's unpossible!

So your argument is they don't have to make money if they don't want to. Fair point I guess, you've shown me. I'll probably just stop posting on this matter, there's just no way to compete with the level of genius logic you've just presented me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Shawarma shop down the street to inform them that they are not required to make any money and that my Shawarma should be free, after all, they only have themselves to answer to.

Wow, way to take his post out of context.

You don't have to chase every single possible revenue stream, especially when it poses risks to other aspects of your business.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Wow, way to take his post out of context.

You don't have to chase every single possible revenue stream, especially when it poses risks to other aspects of your business.

How do you get that out of his post? His context was the following:

- Only public traded companies need to chase profits.

His post was in response to mine that actually outlined your point. Chasing this revenue stream as you put it, really only puts one source of revenue at risk, jersey sales. Given it creates a brand new revenue stream, and the risks to jersey sales are debatable at best (soccer has no issues) then it would be foolish from a business stand point not to at least try it out and see if it nets more revenue.

The up front business case, risks included looks like a slam dunk, but of course you never know until you try. And given there is no moral, environmental, illegal or harm to the community being created by this option, there really is no logical reason for any business, publicly traded or not to try and maximise their profits from this.

If it turns out it's costing them more in jersey sales then they are generating in ad revenue, they can always reverse the decision.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

How do you get that out of his post? His context was the following:

- Only public traded companies need to chase profits.

His post was in response to mine that actually outlined your point. Chasing this revenue stream as you put it, really only puts one source of revenue at risk, jersey sales. Given it creates a brand new revenue stream, and the risks to jersey sales are debatable at best (soccer has no issues) then it would be foolish from a business stand point not to at least try it out and see if it nets more revenue.

The up front business case, risks included looks like a slam dunk, but of course you never know until you try. And given there is no moral, environmental, illegal or harm to the community being created by this option, there really is no logical reason for any business, publicly traded or not to try and maximise their profits from this.

If it turns out it's costing them more in jersey sales then they are generating in ad revenue, they can always reverse the decision.

haha, that's not at all what I said. I said that they're not a publicly traded company and therefore answer only to themselves in regards to revenue. They're not forced to utilize every possible revenue stream, especially one that's brand damaging. Especially when they're about to start raking with the new arena.

You completely missed the point.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by nik-

haha, that's not at all what I said. I said that they're not a publicly traded company and therefore answer only to themselves in regards to revenue. They're not forced to utilize every possible revenue stream, especially one that's brand damaging. Especially when they're about to start raking with the new arena.

You completely missed the point.

Do enlighten me then, I'm all ears.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

I'd buy a chicken on way Flames jersey.

Somehow the Red Deer location only lasted about six months. Gone but never forgotten

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Do enlighten me then, I'm all ears.

I'm pretty sure I already explained it.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm pretty sure I already explained it.

Not sure how really.

You said brand damaging - but didn't explain how you felt this brand damage would actually cost them real dollars.

Then you also said that they don't need to be trying to utilize every revenue stream because they are about to build a new arena. Which seems like strange logic to me. They are about to undertake a huge capital investment, and therefore trying to maximise revenue is a bad idea?

This seems very counter intuitive to me, so I'm probably going to need a little more help to get there.

[Mr.Coffee]

terrible decision, and I know for a fact I will not buy a Flames jersey once ads are plastered all over it. Not a chance... the NHL can fata off on this one.

There, there's the limit NHL. Happy? Now go be happy with the rest of your billions.

[driveway]

If they're going to do it (and they are going to do it) I say get rid of shoulder logos (or flags), and that's where the sponsorship advertising goes.

Prominent, but not obtrusive. That's going to be the key to people accepting it quickly and quietly.

[rbochan]

Time for Adblock Plus Jersey Edition.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by driveway

If they're going to do it (and they are going to do it) I say get rid of shoulder logos (or flags), and that's where the sponsorship advertising goes.

Prominent, but not obtrusive. That's going to be the key to people accepting it quickly and quietly.

Honestly, ads on the shoulders would be one of the most obtrusive places to put it, other than replacing the logo itself.

[cam_wmh]

[crazy thought]
What if the league/team continues to make jerseys without sponsorship logos, for the consumer to purchase?
[/crazy thought]

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

[crazy thought]
What if the league/team continues to make jerseys without sponsorship logos, for the consumer to purchase?
[/crazy thought]

If they go to advertising on the jersey it will be on those sold to consumers as well, IMO.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

[crazy thought]
What if the league/team continues to make jerseys without sponsorship logos, for the consumer to purchase?
[/crazy thought]

That's possible but perhaps the game-worn jersey market would die out because collectors won't like those jerseys with advertising.

I think like all changes, we think we'll hate it but in the end we'll still watch.

I watched HNIC last weekend and they were celebrating the 52nd anniversary of the first HNIC game in 1952. They showed the newspaper report the following day and there was an article titled "Will video kill hockey?"

Hockey on tv was a bad idea to some thinking that nobody would buy tickets anymore.

[SuperMatt18]

I have a feeling the ads will go on the jersey under the numbers. Like an ad bar under the bottom.

This was the long term reason for the jersey tuck rule that was implemented IMO.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's possible but perhaps the game-worn jersey market would die out because collectors won't like those jerseys with advertising.

I think like all changes, we think we'll hate it but in the end we'll still watch.

I watched HNIC last weekend and they were celebrating the 52nd anniversary of the first HNIC game in 1952. They showed the newspaper report the following day and there was an article titled "Will video kill hockey?"

Hockey on tv was a bad idea to some thinking that nobody would buy tickets anymore.

Much like advertising on the boards and on the ice, this too will happen, and then in a 10,20,30 years it will not be a big deal.

[Chill Cosby]

Pretty much a no-lose scenario for the NHL.

Even if most of the people who say they're "never buying a jersey again" stick to it, they'll be replaced faster than they think by younger fans who aren't as concerned with the idea of tradition or who simply don't know any different.

Nothing wrong with not wanting a jersey with ads on it, but I think to suggest that enough people would care to impact the bottom line even short term is probably a little much. Any hit that jersey sales takes will be made up by the ads, and jersey sales will likely go back to growing 1-2 years later.

Personally, ads are no big deal. There is already an ad on every jersey and nobody complains about that one. A few more certainly aren't going to make a world of difference (it's not like they're going to go from the current style to euro style in a season).

And aside from that, this article makes a great point:
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles...t-logical-step

Are jerseys really "sacred"? Steeped in "tradition"? Maybe 3 or 4. But almost everyone has changed their jerseys, added thirds, special editions, winter/heritage classics, etc. The jerseys is not sacred, it's a tool to make money and has been for some time.

In the past 15 years the Flames have had 4 different home/away sets, 3 different third jerseys, a heritage classic jersey, and 3 completely different primary crests. Worth noting, at least.